SRIDEVI Vs. MASTAK AHAMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 17. 2. 1993 passed by the Principal District Judge, motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Dhar-wad on 12. 2. 1993 granting a total sum of rs. 72,000 to the deceased appellant in respect of the accident on 11. 3. 1987 near rachoteshwar Temple in Vokkalgeri Oni, gadag, in which accident the deceased is said to have suffered injuries initially (but succumbed to such injuries later ).

(2.) CLAIMING a total compensation of rs. 4,00,000, a petition was filed by the deceased Sridevi who was aged about four years at the time of accident, through her father as guardian alleging that the deceased Sridevi was injured while she was going to the temple by the truck bearing no. CNB 4373 which was driven by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 was the owner and the respondent No. 3 was the insurer of the vehicle. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exhs. P-l to P-3 were marked and no evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents. The insurance company contested the claim by alleging that the accident was solely due to the negligent act of the child and not on account of negligence on the part of the truck driver. Considering the issue regarding negligence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was due to the negligence of driver of the truck bearing No. CNB 4373 and granted a sum of Rs. 12,000 for the expenses incurred by the father towards treatment of the injured petitioner as against the claim of Rs. 45,000 as compensation. For the general damages, a sum of Rs. 60,000 has been granted. Thus a total amount of rs. 72,000 was granted as compensation. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, the above appeal was preferred by the injured Sridevi through her father as guardian Mallikarjunayya. During the pendency of the appeal, the injured child appears to have died and father, mother, sister and brother of the appellant were brought on record as legal representatives.

(3.) MR. Hatti appearing for the appellants contended that the compensation of 'rs. 72,000 was inadequate. The medical expenses which was claimed as Rs. 45,000 ought to have been allowed. No amount was awarded for further medical expenses and further treatment of the child. The grant of global compensation of Rs. 60,000 for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and general damages is on the lower side.